I have asked numerous times in articles on this blog site: Whose side are we on?
Subject: On Monday, April 22nd, 2013, Miranda Rights were given to Boston Bombing suspect, Dzokhar Tsarnaev, at the hospital by a federal magistrate, interrupting a lawful interrogation by FBI agents.
So what’s so wrong with that?
There’s much more to the story.
First, folks should understand how, when and why Miranda is applied prior or during an interrogation. The Miranda warnings are for the purpose of admitting confessions or admissions into court proceedings at a future time. It assures the court that his/her statements were made voluntarily and knowing he was advised of his rights to silence.
Miranda warnings and admissions have no bearing on any other evidence pertaining to a suspects trial, be it physical evidence, witness evidence or circumstantial evidence. It only applies to self-incriminating statements…and subsequent evidence that are the fruits of those admissions.
Meanwhile, because of the on-going war on terror, the law provides for a “public safety exception” to the Miranda requirements if it is intended to glean intelligence information regarding terror associates and future terror operations.
This rule allowed federal investigators (FBI) to question Tsarnaev during a window of forty-eight hours. The purpose of questioning Tsarnaev was not so much to obtain a confession, but to probe his head for anything he knew about terror networks and on-going plans. In other words, to save lives.
Indeed, the FBI was taking advantage of this legal rule and was not only questioning Tsarnaev at the hospital, they were obtaining valuable information – information that only the terrorist would know, information that would possible save lives in other planned terror attacks. In truth, a plethora of information was being obtained about their motives, their bomb-making devices and more, to and including their original plans to perpetrate bombings at a 4th of July event. Intelligence was being gathered!
Only sixteen hours into the forty-eight hour window – and to the surprise of the FBI who (incredulously) had not been notified – in walked a federal magistrate, a representative of Eric Holder’s U.S. Attorney’s Office and a federal public defender. To the shock of FBI agents, Tsarnaev was thereby recited his Miranda warnings which, in the presence of a free defense lawyer, put the brakes on the interrogation. It cut the opportunity window of the “public safety exception” from 48 hours to 16 hours. Our chief law enforcement officer, the Attorney General, made this happen.
Eric Holder, most likely at the behest of the president, made sure no more information about Islamist terror activities would be obtained – legally – by the FBI.
So, again I ask, whose side are we on?
Even if any admissions by Tsarnaev would be declared inadmissible, the evidence associating him with the bombings and the murder of the M.I.T. police officer were so overwhelming, admissions would be unnecessary. What was necessary, was reaping any and all information Tsarnaev could tell them about Islamist/Terror networks and future terror operations. That’s called “in the interest of national security.” The government, under Eric Holder, on behalf of Barack Obama, put a stop to that.
This never ceases to amaze. Our federal investigative agents are now under orders to cease referring to Islam when teaching, learning, discussing anything to do with terrorism.
Islamists have perpetrated more than 20,000 acts of deadly terror around the world in the last twelve years. And we’re supposed to disassociate Islam from terrorism? Huh?
The Fort Hood shooting by an Islamist terrorists – who was promoted to Major by our Politically Correct government officials – is deemed by the Obama administration as “workplace violence” despite the fact that he was screaming Allah Akbar when firing his gun at forty-one innocent people, killing thirteen. And with scores of witNess testimony, he is still not tried after 3 1/2 years?
Rather than capture and/or arrest Islamists who are thought to be associated with terrorism, and then questioning them for intel, our administration is targeting these people for drone strikes, i.e., murder in foreign counties where we are not at war. Why?
This could be a very long article. But you get the message.
The more dots we connect and the more information we learn, the question should be shouted from the rooftops:
Whose side are we on?